{"id":192767,"date":"2008-07-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008"},"modified":"2015-09-05T22:58:15","modified_gmt":"2015-09-05T17:28:15","slug":"r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"R Dileep Kumar vs S Ramu on 18 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
R Dileep Kumar vs S Ramu on 18 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Subhash B.Adi<\/div>\n
- ; -\nIN THE H\u00a7GH COURT OF FARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE\n\nDATED THIS THE :8?\" DAY OF 3\" UL'! 2003 \n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HONBLE MR.JUS'I'i{ZlE SUBHASH 2:\u00a7.:AD\u00a3      \n\nBETWEEN:      \"\n\nS17; R. Diieep Kumar,\n\nS\/0. R. Rama,\n\nAged, abeut 56 years,\n\nR\/a. Sy.N0.54,\n\nSubramgmyagmm Road, V\n\nChikkallasandra, _T ' '\n\nU  hobli, V    .V '  jv --. -'\nBangalore-560 061.; '    _  -  \" .. APPELLANT\n(By Sri. Sri. G. visvegwaza,'   '\nSri. s. G. Raje\u00e9v   \"I'sEa_j1:, }'Z~.dv9.)\n\nAND: % V\n1.<\/pre>\n
 Sri. S. Ramu,* _ ‘  ._   <\/p>\n
SI 0- 191- %’Sidda19:&a,  = ‘<\/p>\n
Aged about 80 yr:”azs’,*.\n<\/p>\n
Rj\ufb01a. ‘Khatha”:\u00a2g.55o in<\/p>\n
$\u00a7y.1’*~I<3_,\u00bb. Sxzbm\ufb01ianyapttra Road,<\/p>\n
%' ' \u00ab Chikkanas\u00e9ndra, Uttarahalii Hobii,<\/p>\n
'  B$1g&1_ofc-\u00a7'*3.\u00a7C- 'O6 1.\n<\/p>\n
81*}. R. Sii\u00e9laraju,
\nS)’-.0.  R-aihu,
\nV’ Aged. about 51 years,
\n AA R\/a. frihailla No.:’350 in
\n~ Sy~…No.:’54, Subramanyapura Road,
\n‘  V\ufb02hjkkallasandra, Uttaraha\ufb02i Ho-bli,
\nV’ E Bangalsre-56006 1 ,
\n..7A1s:) reading at
\nDoor No.1199, Srirampuia,
\n29\u00a2’ Main, Mysore. .. RESPDNDENTS<\/p>\n
$0<\/p>\n
(By Sri. H. Rajanarayana, Adv. for R1
\nSri. A. G. R& , Adv. for R2)<\/p>\n
.. \ufb01 ,
\nclaim of the glainti\ufb01’ for ‘C’ and ‘D’ properties.<\/p>\n
“2′, The triai -mart based on these pleadings,  the,<\/p>\n
fallowing issues:\n<\/p>\n
1. Does the plaint\ufb01fgmzre his enjeymeni
\n‘B’ scheduie prcperiies as  ‘srfjairz\ufb01  \u00ab
\nftzmify wiih defendant? =  ~’   \u00bb.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a7~.3<\/p>\n
Does defendant No.2″ prgkve  Vs1.z’i3.’  A-32-:’:.3:-.{.=2\u00abV:i’:23Ze %
\npraperties are 3:15 se\u00a7f~aa:ju\u00a7’Siiiort? V ‘  <\/p>\n
3. Whether the suit \u00abis -the pf\u00e9iiisi\u00e9ns sf
\n\ufb01\u00e9mami Tran.-3ac:’ti”ert?.3  1989?\n<\/p>\n
4. Whether defendani  i3g.*z%\u00a3i\ufb01\u00a3\u00abfed  joermanent or
\nrrtanda\u00a3o:y\u00ab\u00a2’ir\u00a7.,iumi:fior;\n<\/p>\n
5. Does; :.1\u00a7’9f;24’_p\u00a9 :’f:oLs\u00a7:’ famiiy partition in\n<\/p>\n
6. iifh\u00e9tfzer ” ,!V\u00e9.2 is entitled for the
\npossession? ” ‘  <\/p>\n
7;,’ {Fees  upI\u00a3iint:f}f?\u00b0 g\u00e9zmve his right fer partition and
\n”  p\u00a7>s3\u00a2ssiori\u00ab:;f_1_{.\\3Td share in the suit properties?<\/p>\n
‘  “8,  the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary
\nT T’;?d’f’?\u20ac’3?*-\u00a5,.V~~<\/p>\n
A   reiiefs she parties are entitled?\n<\/p>\n
A\ufb02B{?’YOAE4L ISSUE FRAMED ON 5.1.1.999<\/p>\n
 x _  Whether the court fee paid on the counter claim is
\n‘ ” sujfideni andproper?\n<\/p>\n
 i\ufb02efem the trial zrgurt, plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and one<\/p>\n
Witness was examined as PW—2 and he get marked EXSP1 to<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
_g –\n<\/p>\n
joint family fund. Later, said suit was withdrawn by the
\ndefsnciani N0. 2.\n<\/p>\n
11. Sr;i,(T’n8.Viswes}Wa::’a, learned Senior Counsel <\/p>\n
for the piai:nt:i\ufb02’ submitted that the suit  .313<\/p>\n
acquired \ufb01om out caf joint famiiy fund. He    <\/p>\n
amount was derived from the Sri Gu.i19un\u00e9:\ufb02;a “Rice  Sli ;<\/p>\n
Gmuna\ufb02xa Rice Miii \ufb01rm is a   i3};~
\nfam\ufb02y in which piajntj\ufb01’, defendai:\u00a3:}’\u20ac9.1,.v\ufb011eft;i1e1\u00e9i1tVV\u00abNvf.$\u00a5V2; ‘Vf\u00a7’o11i1″\u00a7:iV,
\nthe daughtar ef the 1” dcfgndazif   when $111:
\nplainti\ufb01 sscured a G\ufb02vez\ufb01\ufb01cht  of plaintj\ufb01j his<\/p>\n
wife was madc.v;1$  Va    1978, the site at<\/p>\n
R31’ lwiagagf wa$1:~i< L\u00a2:! 1' ~ in order to purchase thg suit<\/p>\n
scheciuie    <\/p>\n
 v if; supfx\u00e9\ufb01: his centerztien, be strongly relied on the<\/p>\n
 *_\u00a7t: "E{ \ufb01.\u00a7\u00a2(} t\u00a7e*–.d@fcnda\ufb02t No.2 in O.S.Ne.134\/1988, which is<\/p>\n
 as  Relying on the said exhibit, he submitted<\/p>\n
V that,  \ufb01i'cfc:1\u00a7,\u00a7a'11\u00a3 No.2 had \ufb01led a. suit. for partition 313:3 scpalate<\/p>\n
 .'A4 1:.'s<'\u00a7sA3t:s;sioii" far 113" share in the suit schsduie garaperty<\/p>\n
 {_'.'3\u00a7<._ N'a:3.*:'.','~\u00ab\u00ab~<3~). He mlied on para–~3 of the piaint and Sllbmift\u00e9d than<\/p>\n
VT  _ 'i;h\u20ac: \u00e9efenda11t No.2 in the said suii has stated as under:<\/p>\n
".3. Farmer during June 29,79 {Nineteen Seventynine},
\nan exfeni cf {and of 3 acme 20 Qantas in Sy..:"\u00a7o.54
\n(Three acres and twenty gamers in Survey IV0.F:}'iyf0ur]
\nof Chikkaiasandra vfilage, Ufiarahaiif Hobk', Qangaiom<\/p>\n
\u00a391<\/p>\n
\\<\/p>\n
,.9,.\n<\/p>\n
Sent}? Taiukt was purchased for yaluabfe oonsidemiion<\/p>\n
in fhe name of me piainii\ufb01j out of the income fram {he
\njoirzi famiiy properties{ Out of Skis iand two aa*es ;r’:f
\nland has been cmrwerfed for nori-agrimgifural
\nThe 119$! of the Icmd is usedfor pouftry and a:griczgl\u00a3:cfe,-f’–V[. ,<\/p>\n
By relying on the said decument, he further s11,7r.>2\ufb011;3L;{i.’t*:Vc:i:iV–T.}i:;’r1:;\u00ab.tT,biagi, <\/p>\n
vim? of the admission 1:33,: the defandan\ufb01 No:,_;?;,\u00ab it  \u00a7::f’O”?t\u00e9d..<\/p>\n
ztioubt ihat; the suit schedula prgxperty i\u00e9\ufb02a ‘jaihnt   ”<\/p>\n
He alse mibmitteci. that, tha s;\u00e9\u00a3ic3: “31;it  x’\u00a7it}3\u00a7(1\u00a7ra1\u00e9e*n on
\n28.8.1979, which is proaucg\u00e9s\u00e9 aiggd further
\nsubmjttsd that, though t}1f’:%    as withdrawn,
\nhowever, the  in   defendant N02<\/p>\n
wilibmd him.\n<\/p>\n
13. He if’1j.c;_1VA:’0Iz ‘E}\u00a7{;’R_14\u00a7{a\u00a7, me haiamte sheet as an 303′
\nJune 193o\u00e9n_ \u00a5.>I de’1’V.,_%\u00a7b:–j.S\ufb01\u00a7\u00a7:i!:::” ilcx\u00e9zt, an amount of Rs.36,887.-45<\/p>\n
paisc, Wh’\u00a7.\u20ac’}} is   EXeP14(c) is Sh()’WI1 standing in tha<\/p>\n
  G\\.i;1*rufii::v Poijl\ufb01j} Faxm as an asset belonging to the<\/p>\n
 He further relied Ex.P’?2, a suit \ufb01ied by the<\/p>\n
   against the defendani No.2 wherein the father
\n 3:aotI:::f% i~ of the plajntj\ufb01 sought for permanent injunctian<\/p>\n
 “the defendant No.2, restraining from irlterferilzg wifth
\n  use and exigioyment of the suit schedule property (house<\/p>\n
 beaxing N0550 in Sy.Ne.54). Relying on Ex.P’?2, he<\/p>\n
further submitted that, at pr.-1:ra–5 of the said suit, both the<\/p>\n
-1@_<\/p>\n
plainti\ufb01s father and mother alleged that, the defendant No.2 is<\/p>\n
trying to oust them fimm the suit scheduie property \u00a31; V~a?\u00a7’z?5×1:;{ of<\/p>\n
withdrawal of the suit in 0.55.310. 134\/ 1988.\u00bb Ha  ;_-QA41:1\u00ab %<\/p>\n
EXP74, 21 writtsn siatement \ufb01led by the c\u00a5e:fe1}c1a: 1_\u00a7j’–V.I’\u00a7t>:.VA;’Zf’   <\/p>\n
sa\u00e9d suit and submitfaci that, in the ‘as:1fi’ttc\ufb01’):A4s\u00a7;a’1?:;11i?:;’Lt_.:at <\/p>\n
thczugh the seems; dcfenciazxt aygges \u00a2h%a%:,% he \ufb01.1;%J::i s\u00e9,?:i{ i1i”= <\/p>\n
O.S.Ne.134\/ .1988 as he was india-cg: “by. ::\u00bb;e’_ is: the
\npurpose of regulazisation cf~:\u00a7h\u20ac  (3-r.I$;!’fi;S’;’fE’?{};\u20acv’M’?1Ei(31I3., the
\nsajci suit: was compromiscrzd  was given to
\nthe \u00e9efendzmt.bc1o\u00a7\u00a7,$:\u00ab:1\u00a7_d$\u00a7\u00a7\ufb01\u00a7\u00e9a\u00a7:t   sairi compromise
\nwas not re::::::\u00b0dt.:\u00a7i’;  \u00a7_\u00a7\u20acVVdefendant N033′ on 0115:
\nbreath  3eli\u00a7;’:a&\u00a7:%ju:\u00a7;:\u00e9\u00a7;’Vpi;:;psrt}*\u00a7 at the same tires,
\nhe ciajms    pfoperty. He f\ufb01zrther submitted<\/p>\n
that, a memer$i:2_\u00a7i:.m  <5c:'.:i1p:f3mise filed in 'the suit {\ufb02ed by the<\/p>\n
fame:  umcssthern'\u00e9f fif;\u00a7:__&p\u00bb1ainti\ufb01" in 0.S.Ne,3257\/1990 as per
\n E1'!ffEI"thOUght an\u00e9 the piajn\ufb01\ufb01 is not party' to the
\nsair.;1    the allegczd ad mission by the defen\u00e9ant
\n 31351  mo\ufb02zer are net binding on the piainti\ufb01i
\n" \u00a7;i_.L\u00a7A1';\u00a7;v;\ufb02z \u00e9v..ze:'f,'. Thsgiltifemed to the gaid dacument and 3uhm.ittc{i that, in
\n \u00abi;'f\u00a7:.::._\u00abjs:aVi\u00e9i'–c–;\u00a7m;;remise, it is admittad than in the event of dttcreeing
\n  the ssctond ci\u20acfsnd3I1t.w'o~u\u00a3:i be antitlcd far 1\/ 3"' sham.
\n Hzgjaisc sub.mitte:d that the piaint\u00e9if did make an appiicatiorz as<\/p>\n
per E:x,P'78 to get himseif impisaded in the suit \ufb01lsci by the<\/p>\n
,\u00ab*-'_''2'?\n<\/p>\n
gb’<\/p>\n
-;;,,<\/p>\n
parents in viftw ()f the order passed in M,F.A,No.154′?]1991
\ndurixzg tbs pendency” of the pI”6S\u20ac:nt suit \ufb01ie\u00e9 by him. P’1aint;i\ufb01’s
\npatents, who had fled the said Silif, withdmw the samt:–as pm”
\nEX,P’I”9, alleging that fhare was a seti}.emeim; The, wife
\nhad also \ufb01led 2: suit against the deihndant Nos.
\nEx.P3Q ix} c>.s,No,30?2\/1991 infer\u00a3::Ei(:_ &
\ni3.1j113:1cti(m net” is change the name a
\nthe name of Si-tidu Poultry  Thgf
\ndefendant. Howavei’, the: amid  -zjflisntzi\u00e9sitfcivljfoagfdefauli. Q11
\n14,12,19′?9. He also siii\ufb01\ufb01itteai i\ufb01\u00e9’~\u00a7en\u00e9\u00a7\u00a7 Naif the suit
\nschedule gmisperty has:  :,f\u00a77′;s.;~:o.44.”3:3\/ 1988
\nagainst the   !’3Q;.:2 $2}? of the sale to the
\n\u00a3’215(t\u20acI].’\u00a3 of  acr\ufb01  th\u00e9 said suit was dismissed; agad
\ncenfum\ufb02d  Vv\ufb01v\ufb02! r\u00ab:”.:;,: 1485 <\/p>\n
 Hz f’:1I’1.”V}1′{‘;17T ggprnitted that, G”uz’s.11:::ath.a Rica Mill was<\/p>\n
“9w.r1i1ig_ 2; _1()?f.\u00b01’_’;?’ \u00a3:’:E~”\u20ac1(3. tbs same was U”\u00a31I1SfCIT\u20acd in fly: 11:33:36 of<\/p>\n
c;:i1~11i:’:a_;~11″P5′:;.1:r\u00a7{;a\u00e9 per E;v;.P13′?’. Ex.P1.’3? is :21 lett\ufb01r a\u00e9drcssed<\/p>\n
V V’ 9:0 Incdme ?13x-Qf\ufb02cer 1:33; the Gumnatha Rice M13, infmming that.<\/p>\n
”  lorry; ‘,:\u00a7’-.::afri11.g NQVMYG 4659 beiengitzg to M[s.Sri Grurunaiiha<\/p>\n
Rfi’c::_  ‘\u00a7’~J\u00a3–ii1 is handed over to M ,1 s,Gumdev P931113’ Farm anti<\/p>\n
%  saiuglzt. fer dsletian o:f’cnt1″y of lorry in the assessment mgistexz<\/p>\n
E<\/p>\n
.3.\n<\/p>\n
15. He a1${) I\ufb01lif\ufb01ii on Ex.P113 and stlbmiticd that the<\/p>\n
dafenciant N02 had \ufb01led objections befem the Land Acq\ufb01:iS%T\u00a3ion<\/p>\n
Oi\ufb01cez’ in mgani ta acquisition of 1 acre 28 guntas ef.~$\u00a7%’._’?\\\u00a7\u00a7}’_.;”S%*.-j1A<\/p>\n
an\u00e9 at 13313-1 of the said 0″h3\u00a7ecti011, he had     <\/p>\n
member of the jam? famiiy cansistizrg obf”i1:in:$e\u00a7f,-.f\u00e9:-it11\u00a2;4;\u00ab<\/p>\n
plaintiff and his mother and has caf\ufb01gdi\u00e9gga\ufb02y <\/p>\n
iheugh the land is purchased in   fax  V’<\/p>\n
property. Hf? also relied reg Ls\u00a7;:ow fh:a ‘Ai\ufb01come of
\nRs,-42,DG{},l – cierived by way   16. 3978 as per
\nthe assessment r6gii*\u00a7\u00a7f\/_\u00a7sr\u00a7\u00a7:”‘3t’:%V   He alga m\ufb01ed on
\nE-X.PI4(a) ?:s:h:f:t;*–1:_   Jung 1930′ gt,
\nfuriher relzlezji” “”‘a$s’\ufb01essment of the second
\ndefendant giefenaant has desctrihtszd his<\/p>\n
assets as 3\/ 4*; :%;.\u00a5::_ VagI’i{\u00a7L;.1’V;i;;;”;\u00e921\u00ab 331d 1\/411″ in 10113; and 1\/ 43* in<\/p>\n
V\u00e9\ufb01urrunagiligav\ufb01icg  }:\u00a7_\u00a7:___fp.r;1*ther refcrre\u00e9 to EXPQ4, tim balance<\/p>\n
A\u00e9}1\u00a7:ct;9=.3- 2 611.. :_1983: to__ point cut 13:15 value of the Izmd is shown as<\/p>\n
Rs.%i:\u20ac}.,{\u00a7{){3\/ V4’;  Izslied on EXPI7, a letter written by the
\n  to Manager, Sangli Bank regarding 10313 for<\/p>\n
_  ‘<:6\u00a31su":;;x:fio1:i'"0f gotiawn.\n<\/p>\n
  He furthcr mferregi to the evidense caf DW~2_ and<\/p>\n
 ‘   ‘that, there was a paxiition izxetween the defendant \u00a3530.}<\/p>\n
  his uncle 02:1 303* December 1955 and subsequently again<\/p>\n
there was 21 partitrion cm ‘.?,2.1.19’?O as per EXF4 betweezx the<\/p>\n
-13-<\/span><\/p>\n
defen\u00e9ant No. 1 and his brothers. In the said parti\ufb01oe, defendant
\nNo. 1 got Rice Mill, which was censtxucted is an area meae\u00e9lring
\n100 ft X 100 ft. Thereafter, a mite bearing No.5 at
\nwhich had fallen it} the share of the \ufb01rst defendeei;,:\\\\
\npurchase the suit schedule property. F::bih”t11e_  V
\nof the said siie and also \ufb01nm the 553;\n<\/p>\n
Gumnathe Rice Mills, the suit
\nin the name of defendant vi’~E–\u00ab:)z.2  faef  by
\nthe defendant N032 in his  1988. The
\ndefendant No.2 ancifhe defeii\u00a3i’.\u00bb.e)tV.:i\\Ez;t’..  mother of the
\nplainti\ufb01 have    property is a joint
\nfamily pmper1y_A”i_t1F   in Q.S.Ne.325′?}19QQ
\nwherein   against ihe defendant<\/p>\n
No.2. The paym.eJ:”rt_0Vf  Cse\ufb01eiciem\ufb01on is clearly shown in the<\/p>\n
“be1anee,.  The  eif\ufb01exzce coupled with the documentary<\/p>\n
   ‘admission made by the defendant Fig.2<\/p>\n
  the suit schedule property, though stand<\/p>\n
  i13 the IVi’E’2lII1t’5.,V eafzsiefendant No.2, was purchased from {slit of jomt<\/p>\n
” H ”  f1_.211d.’~ He also submitted that them ie as evidence to shew<\/p>\n
  siefendant No.2 had any independent source of income to<\/p>\n
 nifeurchese the suit property in 19?8. He submitted that the his}<\/p>\n
  ” ee\ufb01tt has eneneouely held that the  has failed to prove<\/p>\n
V’ that the suit scheduie property is a joint family property by<\/p>\n
<;\ufb015y:,
\nE? * '<\/p>\n
\u00abiii-\n<\/p>\n
wr::2ng.1y pzztting the “buxziers of prcof an the p1a_:’:3i\u00a7\ufb01; despits the<\/p>\n
admission by the \u00e9cfeiidaxzt. F\u00e9:::>.2 in O.S.N0,134\/  He<\/p>\n
submitted that $115 judgment azzd deems of the i:xia3;”{7ou f1f\u00a3. _~;f:i1.:-:A<\/p>\n
passtsd in \ufb01tter disregai\ufb02 {Q the admissicn 3:311_”‘%h\u20ac’V..:%:arjde1\u00a7{;:VV <\/p>\n
establislzing the \u20ac:XiSf\u20acI1{?\u20ac ofjoint   ‘1  * . ‘V ‘<\/p>\n
1?’. Learizcd Cetmsel 21p;3\u20acza,;;*i11gV”\u00a7?r)V.3:””t1:;e  <\/p>\n
submitted that. the suit is 130?  i:i;4\ufb01i;11tai11\u00e9\u00a53\u00a3e&_VVAa\u00e9 Sig; pia\u00e9ntiff
\nhimsslfadmits that, the i%”\u00a7\u00a7$.i\u00a7>’u\ufb01thase\u00a7  the name<\/p>\n
of the second {iefendant far cE31;15\u00a7\u20aci:e\u00a7i?%1ti:);\ufb01 \u00e9f<R'$\u00a235,{3{)0! ~ out of<\/p>\n
imtcame  .i,e., Gurunatha Rice Mill.\n<\/p>\n
Hf: $t113B}?;\ufb011.f\u00a7d” th.ai.t31e; not a gparstncr of the said \ufb01rm<\/p>\n
and he <:am;Q't"–:;1a:i.t3.ta;E_;:133i'e"s\u20ac1it. He also submiiztec\u00e9 that, before<\/p>\n
"i'h;=: 31155;'. ;s_\u00a2.i2a:d13.1e  was purchased by the seccwnd.<\/p>\n
 \u00e9ig:fei,\u00a3:i'e111$,~.;\u00a3ieM  zmtered into 311 agreement date\u00e9 22.4.19'??? as<\/p>\n
peg? gg.g*2\u00a2w& Essa ggiied an E2x,P150 (E1x.D2) szaouwmg that the long?<\/p>\n
 was Iz\ufb01iothgc\u00e9t\u00e9d ms Kesariah Fizganca Csrpora\ufb01on by dcfeng\u00e9ant<\/p>\n
 vazgd Vi\u00e9as geld by \ufb01efexidant Nag fer Rs,4G,Q(}Of~. The<\/p>\n
:_Ij\u00a2gi':::\ufb01*fa\u00a535o11 Ce\ufb01i\ufb01cate cf the lorry produced at Ex.i3'49{a} shows<\/p>\n
 _4t\u00a7aat–;Vit stands in the name sf Gumzdev Peultry Farm, He fxzr\ufb01ler<\/p>\n
A  f\u00e9lied on E,\u00a7x,E?~'\u00a7 1, the <){1I1V\u20ac1"Si0I} Gfland.<\/p>\n
18, ii: fu.r:E1e1* rebled an EX,P'2 and EXPIB to azhcsrw that the<\/p>\n
piain\ufb01\ufb01" reiimci from 2:115 firm on 1.'?.19'?8 and a:\ufb01:s::r th\u00e9: rsrtizctiment<\/p>\n
-15-<\/span><\/p>\n
has got diiferent sham in the pro\ufb01t and loss, he1_1ce the<\/p>\n
partnership cannot become joint family business.<\/p>\n
20. Insofar as payment of sale c0nside1’atioI_t:is
\nhe relied on only Ex.P.14(c) to show th_~at’;’ the in
\nthe name of Gurunatha Poultry to the
\nThough the sale consideration   ‘PW-1  i
\nhis evidence has stated thatA,_…i:  it eonsideration is
\nRs.60,350\/– and further se’ee:1:ted_ amount is paid from<\/p>\n
M\/s.GurunathaR1’ceeMil1.  V<\/p>\n
‘.21. In  ‘Was severance of joint
\nfamily, he 1′,7Cl.l’t’,”(‘!._:(i):1″J;-9   disruption in the family.\n<\/p>\n
22. I11″supporte.Vof’-l.his_i”eoiitention, he relied on a decision<\/p>\n
reported  1995-e.A_LL It-‘IDiI’A ‘ration comm” CASES page 861 and<\/p>\n
 that, vvacquisi\ufb01ohiiof property by a member of the joint<\/p>\n
   of his own. He also submitted that.\n<\/p>\n
 vExs.P’l..1′:oi P3, P14 clearly establish that, there was a<\/p>\n
 disruptioii the  and there was no joint family existed. He<\/p>\n
‘ rstlbtliitted that, the partnership was not joint family
\n  “Fl ‘urther, the plainti\ufb02’ has admitted that he has retired’<\/p>\n
 \ufb01rm. He also relied on Ex.P14(a) to submit that, the<\/p>\n
 ‘balance sheet is dated 30″‘ June 1980 whereas, the purchase of<\/p>\n
J “suit schedule property is dated 29.6.1979. The balance sheet<\/p>\n
I
\n. t (<\/p>\n
-17-<\/span><\/p>\n
pex*tain.s to 13* July 19739 to 3015 Jun: 1989 and the 3.m011nt<\/p>\n
mensrioneci in Ex.P14(a}\u00a7 it dates not prove the case of <\/p>\n
as the balance sheet does not Show paymmat. dt11i13_g\u00a7m\u00e9s2\u00e9$–s:3;is:;iiA_<\/p>\n
year of 1978-39. Insafar as purcthase {sf “‘#:crh\u00a7cisj}.e’<\/p>\n
pmpertj; on ‘29.6.19”.?9 is c011z:.~er;md;=__ thfzrr\u00e9 Li\u00e9; *r:\\}i(i\u00e9z3__<:'\u20ac:.;_Tc\u00a7f<\/p>\n
payment as the accmznts were Vci-based {Sn ;':;-0*11 :T}21':1;c._19?\u00a7?  V' L.<\/p>\n
\nthere is :10 reference in the   jib\u00e9\u00e9n  fmm
\nGur11z1atha Rice M111}   he also
\nI\ufb02icd GI}. Ex.P15{}, at balanff  1979 and
\npointed. out that,   Rice: M3131 for
\nthe purchase    cm hypothecation of
\nthe iomy.   daftzndant. N092 i5 shown
\nas oumer {\u00a7\u00a7 tI;\u00a2   long is tI’aI}Sf\u20acI’I’\u20ac2d as per<\/p>\n
Ex.P13′?,, insofatj\u00e9\u00e9as \u00a3\u00a7ug$\u00e9~3Sm \u00e9i1t of the defendant N92 as per<\/p>\n
.E;x.P15($ot:cCrn\ufb01\u20aci;=}1.{\u00a7_ further submitted that it is his personal<\/p>\n
* -::cma’1:.t._<\/p>\n
 2,’3 ;VV1n$nf\u00e9%”‘:–.Vr$ 0KS$NOIZ3\u00a2! .1988 filed. by the dcfcnriazat No.2<\/p>\n
_ “\u00bb _i$”(j0}f:1C\u00a2’:rf1~!\u20ac’v(;l;;. he submitted than the statemanf mach: in the
\n  :iS=t10\u00a5L concinsz\u00e9ve proof 311:} in this regaxtl, ha relied on a<\/p>\n
  _de\u00a7i:isi @n of the Slzpreme Court regmrted in AH? 19”?4 SC: 471. Hf?<\/p>\n
 $130 relied 0:; his evidence, to shew the circt11z1st2s11<;~e under<\/p>\n
  which the said suit was filed. In this mgaxdg he rslicd on the<\/p>\n
written statement \ufb01l\ufb01d by $114: zisfendant No.1 and the plaintiff 1711<\/p>\n
:-\n<\/p>\n
.18.\n<\/p>\n
$116 said Suit. to show that, they have admitted that, suit prtxaperty
\nis self–aCq11z’3*ed proptarty of the {\u00a7<:":fen.c1am. N052. fiat ftlzrther
\nSilbmitt\ufb01d that, the suit, W85 dismissed as with{\u00a7r.;3\u00a75s;:, He
\nsllbmiftgd that the defendant N02 has shw11 the “._of
\nincams at RsK3Q,0\u20ac)0\/ ~ by 3.236 of icazzy 53.15153 the
\nof the su.:’.i’ schedule ;31″o;>erty is admitted as
\nplaintiif @359; Tha loan was raised on
\nschedule property was p11rchas::(\u00a7'[:_e:2.   V ‘<\/p>\n
224$ Learned Cxmnsel far tIf1e ge,;r;f\u00a7:i;\u00bb1.}<i =r.\u00a7f3fe*;:.2, i"r:az1 \u00a3Ar\u00a2}:;\u00a7::ai. 313311137
\non Exs'P1:'i30, D2, 113$ evid\u00e9ziz\u00e9;-\u00a7"Qf  EX.P52, E:.x,P62,<\/p>\n
Ex.P383 Ex'P14{(*.) tr). sh.-CW… .3551: '*z–3;e.__ :;9\u00a3a;;:;":1%5' is 1101 paid by<\/p>\n
G13n1nath:\u00a7, Rict\u00e9f   in} '\n<\/p>\n
25.  ‘~f}::”e dais-nrclan\u00e9g fzlrfthttz” s!.1bmit’\u00a3.es:i<\/p>\n
that $31!: szgit is} in View of that fact that, plaintiif<\/p>\n
  \u00a7;\u00a7f3.Iff1}f\u00a71″ of  and once he is ratired {mm the firm,<\/p>\n
he  a. Suit for pazii\ufb01cm or share: in the:\n<\/p>\n
   pa\ufb01m\/zr\ufb01hip  Without pzfjudicc, ht: also submitted ‘mat,<\/p>\n
 ‘ms 111e;111’fia>.:;i; atgf ‘A’ schedule pmprsrty in tha p\u00a3a:im, skews that, the<\/p>\n
 \ufb02\u00e9long to M] s.(}ur11naitha Rice M\ufb01is and Gxinldev<\/p>\n
   It is stzianzittcd that, ins-:>far as Gurudsv Peuitry<\/p>\n
?iZ1:i’\ufb01f:”is contained, admi\ufb01edly, neither the pkajn\ufb01ff is partxzzer 1301″<\/p>\n
 has any rciiation with the p1″1}z’:y:, inclusion of G11r:.1d::v Faulty};<\/p>\n
.jQ-\n<\/p>\n
Farm i5; II1iSC(}I}{?\u20ac’iVCd, ‘B’ scheduier ;m:wps1:*ty is a b11i1c\u00a7i11g EJ113211 an
\nthe property belonging to the second defemiiani, and without.
\nfhare bging  right aver the land, ‘\u00a3116 Claim in mspgzgt of a
\nbu\ufb02ding is net maintaizzable, \u00bb<\/p>\n
261 He fairthar submittad than the schezi\ufb01lg\u00e9
\npur<.*ha.s,scc1 in the? name 9f the se<:ro;1ci"'a?;s:f\u00a3:1:\u00a7L.\u00e9#:;\ufb01_;t"  ' j "
\ndee\u00e9, proparty rsgister stand in hi$
\nadmittedly has been paid _4;\u00a3}2\u20ac  %
\nhypsthecatjng thc larry, vrghish  e$;ide.1r.1't"D2, He
\n\ufb01xziher submitted $1131.; V   \ufb01rm is a<\/p>\n
sepazaitz property and eat,r_"rh–V.-:)f\u00a3;"'V $11.:  :v,IE:\u00a7\u00e9.1"s gs': a distjxzct<\/p>\n
sepa\ufb02-{ta  iie ".:_h\u00a7V  of the share, they are holders of<\/p>\n
scparz:-13:3 pfogggerfy. '  <\/p>\n
~11; th\u00e9 i:';ght'j<if the \u00e9fontantians raised by 11:31}: the Sidii\ufb01,<\/p>\n
 {E15  jgitx\u00e9rglts an \u00a7tHfor co1:3.s\ufb01crat;i0x1 in this appeal;<\/p>\n
  '  defendarztg preve Ihai aim suit is not
\n T rfmif;1i::'u:'na;I)fe?\n<\/p>\n
 “‘Wh\u00e9\u00a7’?zer She piainir\ufb01” fuzz-s prayed {km the 3212′:<\/p>\n
” .3:-fzedufe pmperties arej0ii1.zfa171z’!_y prapeiffes and
\nhe has share in the s{:i,idproper1.’ie$?<\/p>\n
 1.28, A: the outset, from the pleadings, it \ufb01g clear t};1a:\u00a3.,, the<\/p>\n
h  V  “”;\u00e9V\u00a71H22L\u00a33’1\u20acif:” cgaims “that the giefazsdant Ekkxl started Gtznlnatha Rice<\/p>\n
 M2113 in mg year 2957 an\ufb01 in 1971, glainnl\ufb01 am tht\u00e9 defendant<\/p>\n
.,;>g..\n<\/p>\n
?4o:2 wart: i:;::h1cte:\u20ac\u00a7 as partners, Further in 1975; plainti\ufb01” was
\nsubstituted 1:35;” 11$ ‘wife: as a partnar and in thc yea}: 1984, the-:-.
\npa:r’t;aersh.ip was traxasfecrr\ufb01d and a new partnersmp was<\/p>\n
canstimtad. with assets mzd iiabilitigs and piajntiff a33;\u20acg\u00e9’:3_ t};at;<\/p>\n
def\ufb01n\u00e9ani N0″ 3, invested the mane}; in the nam_e’\u00a7:)i’ i\u20aci’=\u00a7ff’\u00a7:i<:i'a;:\u00a7\u00a71~– <\/p>\n
N92' in support. cf his case,  had _. S\u00a73Vtt1;2%3". <\/p>\n
doctumatzlts.\n<\/p>\n
29. it is not in (iisp1′;te’\ufb02:;a,\u00a7 Ex:;?1.’ is a’ \ufb01z\u00e9g’i\u00a7zt:a!:ioI1A av? L’<\/p>\n
partnezship deed, EXWPQ is a 7pa111;\u00a7%fs_\u00a7:i1:sVV_deeci’.’ \u00abFrbm viE:x.P1, it is
\nclear that, the plajxztiif was-..;\u00e91::Vpar\u00a531e;’Vf\u00a70~m\u00bb to 191753 and fmm
\n1975 tmwaitis, hisjwifxa bAf:C\u00a3>3TJQ?x–f:  \u00a3115 pz\u00bb;rtners%1:i;3<\/p>\n
dead, \u20acac;_?a of get a distinct sham: in I113 pm\ufb01t
\nand. liabi11*;i;s.M% %  ‘ta piaintiff himself, the sage<\/p>\n
censizizjra\ufb01oix Rio._ 1)11I\u00a7;*i3$s:\u20ac ;Ehe suit land was paid from the<\/p>\n
 V\u00e9zcrcgti\ufb01f’ 0:3~.T.;\\;\u00a7,i%’3{{}1:1;Li:i:it}ia Rice: Mills, In this ragarri, ‘ms: relied<\/p>\n
\u00a7:\u00a7:1__ “EXIPAJ  ‘\u00a7hr: piaadingg an\u00e9 the evidence lad by {Chit<\/p>\n
 it .is73 .c:3:eax that. the p1a:i;11ti\ufb01’s Case is based on the<\/p>\n
 .  ‘2iVr;.u111is:ii:i<:~n ;:\u00bbf psroperty by the \ufb01rm' Piainii\ufb01" is not disputing that
\n ._  13;r\u00e9\u00a7$"*\u00ab;s10t a partner wI:1.\u20ac:1 {\u00a3113 prsrzaperty was acquired, There is
\n ..__ :io Qispute {hat the property was acqu\ufb02td in the year 29?') and<\/p>\n
V V  n  "at 'that time, the plaintri\ufb01' was met a parmar. if {ha piainti\ufb01s Ca\ufb01\ufb01f<\/p>\n
is basad on acquisition of }_3r01)CI't_fe' out af funds 01" the<\/p>\n
partnership firm, then the plajzxtiff has to pmvs that, he has got<\/p>\n
,2;,<\/p>\n
share in the fem; when the was not a partner at relevant
\ntime of purchase of the suit pmperty, whether plaintiff could
\nclaim share in the same?\n<\/p>\n
so. In this case, the wife of the p1ain1:i\ufb01’ is not a “The<\/p>\n
plaintiff does not dispute that, his father, the .{3f1:*stv  4_<\/p>\n
started Gurunatha Rice Mills in 195′? by  ‘ <\/p>\n
in Mysore allotted to him in the  “V1955  <\/p>\n
also a partition between. the  ii-efcnttient   L’<\/p>\n
1970 and the \ufb01rst defendant   Rice
\nMills and a site in Raja;’iIV1aeegr_.A  alleges that<\/p>\n
the first defendant s<)lVd_\u00bb–    Rajajinagar for<\/p>\n
Rs.25,0(}t)]- _ :5'  Suit schedule pxoperty for a
\nconsidc1'aE'(511_"of  J\ufb01however. he also admits that<\/p>\n
Rs.10,()C.G,l_–   the joint famiiy business i.e.,<\/p>\n
 *Rit':e MiIleV.V"""'\ufb011ough the allegation is made that the<\/p>\n
  was from the sale of property at<\/p>\n
    accoxding to the plain\ufb01\ufb01 himself the sale is<\/p>\n
 18,2Z~}978, Whereas the suit schedule prept:rt.y is<\/p>\n
  on 29.6.1979. Same does not shew any co-reiatioxx<\/p>\n
 -.._”iBet\\$\u00e9\u00a7een saie of Rajajinagar property am}. the purchease of suit<\/p>\n
-32-<\/span><\/p>\n
33.. In this regard, it is necessary to notice the evidence of
\nthe glainti\ufb01’. He categorically admits in his examina\ufb01ert4tti#et1ief
\nitseif that: ‘ t\u00e9   V<\/p>\n
“The suit property was purchased for Rs. Z <\/p>\n
amount was provided by funds of Guru\ufb02aiha  M2’I\u00a3\u00a7;,.V <\/p>\n
ajointfantilypavtrwrship concerrt” ‘ \u00ab  ‘7   V. V’
\nThis admiseicm is further suppoi      L’
\nplain\ufb01\ufb01’ an Ex.P14. Ex.P1{_} is  tire  te\ufb01ishow that
\nthe jpayment of amountvveeis _   Rice Mills.<\/p>\n
Ex.P14 is an assessment   Rice Mills of
\nthe year 1989′     30th June 1980.\n<\/p>\n
Ex.P14(a] is fgaiect   tcfrsimw that an amount of
\nRs.36,88′:ft45      e\u00a7{\u00e914(c) is paid tn Gurudev
\nPoultry   admittedly relates 3:0 21 year<\/p>\n
commencing  ‘E?’ s 1979 to 3031 June 1980. The<\/p>\n
 V\ufb01umhasie irfthe-._s11it  property is cm 29.6.1939, i.e., prior<\/p>\n
 ‘\u00e9.e~e.e3:S1r2E:en:t”_:year of 1979430.. In the cmss~examina\ufb01on,<\/p>\n
‘     that as per Ex.P}3, he retired from<\/p>\n
 \u00ab.._’G-uruna\ufb01igt\ufb01ice Mills in 1975 and whatever pro\ufb01t and loss was<\/p>\n
   t<':'r_.his share was transferred to the account of hits Wife. He<\/p>\n
 .___'"a51st:\u00a7;admits that, his share is about Rs. 32,600] ~.<\/p>\n
32. Learned Senior Counsel for the plaint;i:\ufb01:’ had further
\nIeiied on the hypothecatrion of the lorry belonging to Gurllnatha<\/p>\n
rg\ufb01\ufb01<\/p>\n
%”\\<\/p>\n
-33-<\/span><\/p>\n
Rice Mills as $63′ Ex.F1SO in order to show mat the sale
\nconsideration was arra11g\u20ac:d_by hypothecatjng the said lorry to
\nM] s.Kt:sariah Finance Ccznxpora\ufb01on for Rs.40,0GG\/-. As against<\/p>\n
this, the defezudant had relied on Ex.Di2, an R.c.boo1<..jo"'_:'s1;ow<\/p>\n
that the iorry was purchased in the year 1977 by. _<\/p>\n
R.C. book stood in the name: ef the defendant  .. <\/p>\n
hypothccat\ufb01d for a yeriod of 8 L   <\/p>\n
Corpora\ufb01on and it is entered in the.=;_ RC.' -mes; " ,<\/p>\n
ciaearly Show that the plajnti\ufb02' Wa\u00a7'\u00a7t't':;}':5i, _onl\u00a7 'w\u00a7\u00a73'vi30t':;partner of
\nthe \ufb01rm nor the decumtnt\u00e9ss'  pmvtit tite payment
\nof sale consideration at m1eva\ufb01t_Vp\u00a3'\u00a7\u00a7:t$fbV Guzcuna\ufb01la Rice<\/p>\n
Mili. He also   tr:  an amount was<\/p>\n
g\u20ac\ufb02\u20acT3t\u20acdV:"'b}"' RHGWCVCI, fmm Ex.D2, it is clear<\/p>\n
that the Eon-if was'  the name of defendant No.2 and<\/p>\n
__.   shows, nit  I\ufb01rpothecatcd by him.\n<\/p>\n
‘  .. the above. the partnership deed Ex.P2<\/p>\n
 each partner has got distinct share. F”irs'{<\/p>\n
 V  \u00abgt  has got 30% share, defendant No.2 has got 25%
\n  of the plain\ufb01\ufb01 has got 20\u00b0\/o share and another
\n_ Q\ufb01fi\ufb01\u00e9rthas got 25% shape. when the: partners have gtzat di\ufb01emnt
\nVt tiisti\ufb01lct share in the yartnarship business, it cannot be held that,<\/p>\n
D\u00bb  [it was joint faxnily business and the acquisition of pmperty by the<\/p>\n
saiai \ufb01mil is acguisition by the joint family. if it is joi\ufb01t family<\/p>\n
-34.\n<\/p>\n
bueiziess, the share should have been equal whereas, the shame
\nshown in the deed does not support the case of the plain\ufb01\ufb02”.
\nPiainti\ufb01 has failed te pmve that, M] s\ufb02urunatizia Rice Mi\ufb01ie joint<\/p>\n
family business 3302′ he is a partner of the same.<\/p>\n
34. Further, the acquisition of property as
\n[)2 clearly shows that, the consigiefation is   by V’ 9
\nM} s\ufb01uninatha Rice Miiis, in turn, <\/p>\n
lorry was hypotheeated an 2015\u00bb a}iia.e 1’97’9_’  the V L’<\/p>\n
suit schedule property is j{ai3.rehaiserVi:A”‘o_n”‘:?.,F,3J’*’  19:79, which
\nsupports the case of the  of the plaintiff
\nthat the consideraiiczxi is p’9;id– iiiiyv 2 i\u00e9ice Mills is not
\n   as per Ex.P14, which is
\nadmittedlyefof the <\/p>\n
 -As re’\u00a7a1~e?.$”te tize iedmission of the defendant No.2 in<\/p>\n
:i’ii_d’;:’3.er\u00a7:s-; i.3\u00ab4f19″8\u20ac\u00a7, tixgiigh the defendant No.2 \ufb02ied the said suit<\/p>\n
   the suit schedule propeziy as joint famiiy<\/p>\n
    the suit came to be withdxawn. In this regarti.\n<\/p>\n
-.  Coiizisei for defendant No.2 has relied 013.. E: decision of<\/p>\n
  reported in 11,12 1992 Ker 2905 in the matter of
\n .\/._”}\u00a7.Di\u00a7,IP KUMAii’ –vs~ s.RAMU inieralia, submit\ufb01ng that, em<\/p>\n
  isleatiiiigs am not admissible in evidence as conclusive proof. He<\/p>\n
also relied on a decision 01′ the Apex Court reported in AIR 1974<\/p>\n
f%<\/p>\n
“J<\/p>\n
‘.\n<\/p>\n
.25.\n<\/p>\n
SC 4?} and in support of the same, be 3.130 relied on the evidence<\/p>\n
of DW-1. DW–1 in his evidence has expiajned the cixeumsiaqees<\/p>\n
under which the suit was \ufb01led intera\ufb01a, alleging  <\/p>\n
advised to \ufb01le a suit as the piajntiff wanted 1    _  <\/p>\n
1:0 him and he had teld the}: it is not p\u00e9\u00e9\u00e9\ufb01le fvtd’._:e-giei_7e\u00a7*_f.?Q,e”V\u00e9;:a1\u00e9<\/p>\n
deed in his favour as he was not an ag\ufb01eultuzietv \u00e9:am:\u00a7'”‘\u00a7:v1e1e’–.V<\/p>\n
i31aim:i\ufb01’s A\ufb01vcxrate had advised’ \ufb01le” 3._Vsu.eif= get it <\/p>\n
compromised .\n<\/p>\n
36. It is settled law   am not
\nconclusive   pm\ufb01\ufb01sg on an
\nearlier occasio;1….:v\u00a7\u00a7i\u00a7\u00a7.V.  of mjunction has
\nebserved    the admission. alleged to
\nhave beeI1 “:;:1ade \ufb01efeixdant No.2 in the plaint in<\/p>\n
().S.No.134\/ 19\u00e9’8,,_  1:;..\u00a2a1in.o\u00a3”be said that the plaintiffs case<\/p>\n
j\u00a71*<i~1':'ed;~.  '1'}:1e \u00e93;!;tV1 admission by itself will not be a<\/p>\n
  the defendant will be at libeny to show,<\/p>\n
'   under 1p\u00a7fV11atvr:ii*(:;v"2.;_::&1sta11ces he has made it and even to Show that<\/p>\n
  was  The Apex Court in a decision} xeported in AIR 39'?-4<\/p>\n
  3:14?' the matter of BISWANATH PRASAD AND OTHERS –vs-<\/p>\n
  PRASAD AN D GTHERS has obsewed:\n<\/p>\n
‘There is ca cardinal disiindion. between a party who is
\nthe author of a prior statement and a witness who is
\nexamined and as saught to be discredited by use of his
\nprior staiement. In the fonner case an adrnissien by a
\npang is substantive evidence if it \ufb01xyilb the<\/p>\n
-35-<\/span><\/p>\n
requirements cf 32}; in the latter case at prior siaiemeni<\/p>\n
is used to discredit ihe ctredibiliiy of the wiiness and
\ndoes not bemme substantive evidence. In the former
\nthere is rm necessary requirement of the siaterrtcinii
\ncontaining the admission having to be put is the
\nbemuse it is evidence pmprio vigore; in the latter. gage  V ”
\nthe Court cannot be invited I0 disbelieve a w_iii:.es$
\nthe strength of a prior mntraciiciory statement “uniess it
\nhas’ been put to him, as required by Section _-I 45″.”’–. .  4′<\/p>\n
37. In the light ef the decision  <\/p>\n
statement by iisezlf is not a concii\ufb01\ufb01izzg  thgixgh’:..;it’ be* i<\/p>\n
cvidtzncc. However, defendant  ‘i333  in his
\nevidence, as to under what  was \ufb01led anti
\nit is also clear  the j'(\u00a7ii1’E””.:’\u00bb.t’r;1i’.y’i,.”Vf’t}\u00a7it’:’11t \ufb01led by the<\/p>\n
piainti\ufb01’ and cief.c:11\u00a7Iai.;ar;i:i;{i   that the suit<\/p>\n
property   of defendant No.2. in View 0f
\nthese “it'”c:annot be held that the case 0f<\/p>\n
the p1ai;m:1fLs:5i:dig ‘pi$3v\u00e9\u00a3i.&’}t;1dmitted1y, the said suit did not<\/p>\n
 and  in the judgment of this<\/p>\n
Cfm\ufb02f 200? KAR 2394 in the matter of<\/p>\n
i  \u00bb,1<.s.V1\u00ab:r_\u00a2'i<AT;\u00a5:Si\u00a5:i_ '-i-vs- N.G.LAKS\u00a7-iMINARAYAN"A AND OTHERS<\/p>\n
 \u00abxiyiilcreixa \ufb0213'.$AC011I'\u00a7L has held that:<\/p>\n
  "ii" "an admissiorr, is in writing and if an opposite pars};<\/p>\n
"._w:12iis to\u00bb make use of that statement as an admzssiarz,
\nihen the whole statement containing the admissgian must<\/p>\n
 'V —-be taken iogeiher to ascertain what the party has<\/p>\n
conceded againsr hinzseyf Unless the whole is received
\nthe true meaning cf the part which is evidence against
\nhim cannot be ascertaineci An admission aontaimad in a
\npleading is :1 piece of substantive evidence, which can<\/p>\n
g "in,
\n#1 ._~'<\/p>\n
-37-<\/span><\/p>\n
be aczied upon even witheuz putting it to the maker of
\nauch statement. . . .’
\nIn this case, the defendant No.2 has expiaincd the:
\nunder which he had \ufb01led the said suii, apart”
\nplainti\ufb01, who was defendant in the  \u00e9uitf
\n‘(ha suit schedule pmpcrty Was’  1 nu
\ndefendant No.2. Nothing has 1acV:e”11:\u00a71icitec.i by  th\u00e9’
\ncross–exami11aticm of DWV.,\u00ab;;.,.V. ggte\ufb01isiqn ‘of ‘the  (301114;
\nmported in AIR 195*? so  QASANT SiNGI~i ..\n<\/p>\n
v$- JANK; s;N<_}H–i ;sz;_    'Apex Court has
\nobserved: "  ' I A '
\n'Adn'\u00a2iwi\u00a7:z_v'..\u00bbbe \u00a7$:\u00e9AcZ' \u00a2..\u00a7_m\u00a7idenoe against him in
\nother su1"\u00a3:.-i, _Sizch,a.:1nti$sio:; oamwi, however, be<\/p>\n
regarded asL~:;f?zcIu$ii9eT and the pcmy can Shaw it as not<\/p>\n
_._'{'he {}\u00abi\u00a7\u00a7;if;iOn  this Court in a case Itpo\ufb01rzci in KCCR<\/p>\n
 = 1\u00e9i9}9{  .i;;;*–..1;he matter of SMT.SI~\u00a3AK\u00a5;INTALA BAE –~vs- SR\u00a7<\/p>\n
1\\\u00e9A_LL\u00a71\u00a7s:A'R;i:;i\u00a7;\u00e9i\u00e9PA JEVARGI has alsa hel\u00e9 that<\/p>\n
'"*"Adm1s$ior2s made in other procaeedings though reievarti<\/p>\n
woufd no! he conciusive and it can be shown that \ufb02ue<\/p>\n
n VTL_ad25n1'ssion made :3 incorrect or based an<\/p>\n
_ "misundersianciing and acimission macie in a. previous<\/p>\n
 giroceeding is not oondusizxe proczf tfwugh it may be
\nreievant."\n<\/p>\n
uhese decisions dearly Show that, the admjs\ufb01ion made by the<\/p>\n
defendant No.2, that itsclf is not a ccnclusive gsroof. \u00a311 case of<\/p>\n
joint family DI’O3)CI’1Z3I. in thfi absence of evidence to Show the joint
\n1<\/span><\/p>\n
.23.\n<\/p>\n
living and combined cultivation, acquisition by joint income,
\nclaiming the acquired property as joint family properly eamlot be
\naecepte\u00e9, solely because it is acquired by the Manager of the
\nfasrsily at relevant ooint of time. In the decision of
\nIeported in 1995 Ame 861 in the matter of RAMAPPg\u00a7”EJ\u00a7;’:f\u00a7;g\u00a7l5i?%~~. _
\nPALLED AND OTHERS –vs- SMTBASAVA
\nCotut has held that, the pmperty
\nshorer. no presumption would srisees 3’oV:i;*1_tl   *’
\nis also supported by another     1991 V
\nPATNA 145 in the matter  ‘ieAs;\u00a7ii’i\u00a7A?:\u20ac1;;V,”‘f::xazARik’ 5:, omess \u00ab-<\/p>\n
vs~ RAMAKANT’ TIWARY AND o-*i\u00a5Hi:’1-2s:”  <\/p>\n
38.  tfia;’3–..\u00ab;o13i*t’i;xeiVs foun\u00e9. that, the plow’ \ufb01ff
\non one haiid\u00e9 \u00a7:leadsVli;ll};iatV  schedule properties are joint<\/p>\n
family pzopert};;’–o\ufb01’vthe  in the plaint as well as in the<\/p>\n
1..-e:ridenqe;’.:.he_lA siivegestt ‘t\u00a71s._t_.__l\ufb01rst defendant invested the money in<\/p>\n
the ‘   Vsee.o\ufb01d__ ciefeneiant out of the income derived from<\/p>\n
  V   whereas, the piainti\ufb02” in evidence alleges<\/p>\n
 that,  “3; purchased by the second defendant on the<\/p>\n
 V of tlie plamt\ufb01\ufb01 himself as per EXPIS7 whereas, the ease<\/p>\n
”  \ufb01isin\ufb01\ufb02is that, Rs.2S,Of}O\/~ is paid by the defendant No.1.<\/p>\n
T e$\u00a7<;'P'l57 is not proved. {Defendant No. 1 at parsfia of his written<\/p>\n
llhxhlstatement has stated that he paid Rs.25,0{}0f~ out of sale<\/p>\n
proceeds of sale of site No.5, Rajajinagar. Even the p3.aintiff at<\/p>\n
-39-<\/span><\/p>\n
pazrar\u00e9 0f his piaint has stated that the \ufb01rst defendant mvestsd<\/p>\n
the money. Timre is no pleading mat the p1aix1ti\ufb01’ paid
\nconsideration. Ex.P157 is neither supported by  M
\nevidence. Though defendaxzt. No.1 has \ufb02ied tha   –
\nsupporting the case 9f the p1ainti\ufb01’ ha\u00e9zg
\nbox to prove that Rs,25,CK)O\/- of s:a;1;ti”.A_
\nsits No.5, Rajajinagar, no docum\u00e9iit\u00e9gar\ufb01    V
\ncourt on appreciaiion of ..21as  that the<\/p>\n
suit schedt\ufb02e proparties are not-j9i1i t <\/p>\n
39. Though    {he documents,
\nsuch as Exfgi   1988, EXSP14. P63 —\n<\/p>\n
the writte1i__ ;:?:1e(1%4.%\u00a7;\u00a73g;…x{1;Me _’dV:\u00a5:’fendant Nos.1 and 2 and
\nEx.P’?4 –   by the second defendant in<\/p>\n
O.S.Na.3f2i”%7_[ }.9u9{).,VAAh<:$5ve\\$\u00e9r,\u00ab..'fht3se dcxruments do not establiah<\/p>\n
:' 'T;h\u00a7\u00e9"t:xif;'t\u00bb\u00a7n{\u00a5e of joint  or the acquisition of suit schedule<\/p>\n
  the joint family fund. A suit \ufb01led by the<\/p>\n
   \u00e9.s.No.3o72\/ 1991 is dismissed for default and<\/p>\n
 E3332? is the agreement 0:" sale is in the name of<\/p>\n
  No.2 azxd thereafter, under an ageement by the<\/p>\n
 .___':V1'\u00e9fei:;dant No.2. 1 acre was agreed to be sold as per Ex.P156,<\/p>\n
  'thev\ufb01e documents estabiish that, the defendant No.2 not only<\/p>\n
purchased the suit schedule property, but also exercised his right<\/p>\n
over the same as absolute owner.\n<\/p>\n
.30.\n<\/p>\n
40. From the evtietience led by the partiee, it is clear tlzat the
\nplaintiff was not a partner of M] s.Gu:runatha Rice Millst’.:.ik.*l3.en
\nthis property was acquimd. Plaintiff has admitted
\nschedule property was acquired from out of   K
\nGurunatha Rice Mills. The plain\ufb01\ufb01
\nM\/s.(}urui1atha Rice Mill is a joint
\nalso not prevo\ufb02 his case that the ‘ac\ufb01tiisition of the’
\nname of defendant No.2 is \ufb01eee  iitiiiclette. In the
\nabsence of evidence of the   the plaintiff does
\nnot get share inf. u eiie of the family
\nmembers in his ” l3i; of of3’oi;tit family and
\njoint fam\ufb01y 1:~*u1:{i”,:’fs;;t;it  be held as joint. family
\npmpertiesLV–._lf’tl1e  not joint family properties,
\nthe suit fer  and the trial court on<\/p>\n
 of  evidence has rightly come to the<\/p>\n
if ‘   the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff<\/p>\n
 ielied oi: severe] tiecisions, however, on facts it is fotmd that, the
\n  being a partner of M] s.Gm’unatha Rice Mill and also
\n  having failed to prove the joint family nucleus to<\/p>\n
 V   ilgiiitehase the suit eehedule property and further, the property
\nadmittedly being purchased by the defendant No.2, i do not find<\/p>\n
that, the decisions relied by the leained Senior Counsel for the<\/p>\n
plaia\ufb01\ufb01 are of any assistance. The trial court on appreciation of<\/p>\n
the entire evidence with well-founded reasms has held that, <\/p>\n
suit schedule properties are self\u00bb-acquired pmpertim of    3<\/p>\n
defendant   ‘<\/p>\n
42. In the light of the above d1sac’ _nssio\u00a7:\u00a7;’..1 &o  V’<\/p>\n
merit in the appeal to interfere w1th’ the  S<\/p>\n
the tr’:a1court.<\/p>\n
\nAcmraingxy, the appeal ~ \n %%%%    S&\/3'\n\nJudg3'\n\nKNM} V-.\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court R Dileep Kumar vs S Ramu on 18 July, 2008 Author: Subhash B.Adi – ; – IN THE H\u00a7GH COURT OF FARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE DATED THIS THE :8?” DAY OF 3″ UL’! 2003 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUS’I’i{ZlE SUBHASH 2:\u00a7.:AD\u00a3 BETWEEN: ” S17; R. Diieep Kumar, S\/0. R. Rama, Aged, abeut 56 years, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-192767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR Dileep Kumar vs S Ramu on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R Dileep Kumar vs S Ramu on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-05T17:28:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R Dileep Kumar vs S Ramu on 18 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-05T17:28:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":5711,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008\",\"name\":\"R Dileep Kumar vs S Ramu on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-05T17:28:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R Dileep Kumar vs S Ramu on 18 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R Dileep Kumar vs S Ramu on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R Dileep Kumar vs S Ramu on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-05T17:28:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R Dileep Kumar vs S Ramu on 18 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-05T17:28:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008"},"wordCount":5711,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008","name":"R Dileep Kumar vs S Ramu on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-05T17:28:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dileep-kumar-vs-s-ramu-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R Dileep Kumar vs S Ramu on 18 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192767","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=192767"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192767\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}